351–360 of 479 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read the context.
I did. The context is Spotify's back catalogue. Which includes the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Motown, et al.
And in Sweden, home of Spotify, the other big news is that NYSE raised Switzerland's flag. https://www.thelocal.se/20180403/spotify-swiss-or-swedish-wh...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starting their own label is exactly what they need to do to remain competitive. It's exactly what Netflix ended up doing and I think it's turning out pretty well for them. I wouldn't be surprised if Spotify tried poaching higher-level strategy people from Netflix.
>"Starting their own label is exactly what they need to do to remain competitive. It's exactly what Netflix ended up doing and I think it's turning out pretty well for them." This seems to be a common refrain that Spotify can just "pull a Netflix." And this is very unlikely. Firstly no matter how much opriginal content they could create, if they don't have back catalog it's going to be a total non-starter for the mai…
Time will tell but i feel like this can go either way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starting their own label is exactly what they need to do to remain competitive. It's exactly what Netflix ended up doing and I think it's turning out pretty well for them. I wouldn't be surprised if Spotify tried poaching higher-level strategy people from Netflix.
>"Starting their own label is exactly what they need to do to remain competitive. It's exactly what Netflix ended up doing and I think it's turning out pretty well for them." This seems to be a common refrain that Spotify can just "pull a Netflix." And this is very unlikely. Firstly no matter how much opriginal content they could create, if they don't have back catalog it's going to be a total non-starter for the mai…
I'm not quite clear on why people are choosing spotify over google play music - to me the google option is superior in UI and offerings (including ad-free youtube). Am I missing something? Is it just one runs better on iPhones or is more hip (like why people choose snapchat over instagram or something)?
I was a longtime user of Google Play (Songza before that) on iPhone. I loved the playlist but the app was incredibly buggy. I was using the free version so I had ads. Often the ad wouldn't play and then freeze all playback, or the ad would play and then the music wouldn't start again. This made me very hesitant to pay a monthly subscription. I've switched to Amazon Music (free with my Prime membership) and although t…
They are all insanely buggy. I was a Spotify user for about 6 years before this and it was buggy, and is getting buggier as far as I can tell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"Starting their own label is exactly what they need to do to remain competitive. It's exactly what Netflix ended up doing and I think it's turning out pretty well for them." This seems to be a common refrain that Spotify can just "pull a Netflix." And this is very unlikely. Firstly no matter how much opriginal content they could create, if they don't have back catalog it's going to be a total non-starter for the mai…
Yeah i disagree. In 20 years, the Beatles and ac/dc will be less relevant and easier to live without. If Spotify start their own content channels now, and i imagine they have, the situation could easily be reversed, where they have exclusive rights to the content that others want. Time will tell but i feel like this can go either way.
If you made that statement I'm guessing that you don't realize that the Beatles have been relevant for 50 plus years now and AC/DC for 40 plus years.
They are so enduring because they are classics. It's amusing that you believe that when yet another generation discovers these artists they are somehow going to become less relevant.
Both of those artists that you used in your example were long time hold outs to allowing their music to be streamed. And it was huge news for Spotify when they were added to their catalog.
It's worth mentioned that Beatles tracks were streamed 50 million times in the first 48 hours that they were available for streaming.[1]
[1] https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/12/beatles-songs...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah i disagree. In 20 years, the Beatles and ac/dc will be less relevant and easier to live without. If Spotify start their own content channels now, and i imagine they have, the situation could easily be reversed, where they have exclusive rights to the content that others want. Time will tell but i feel like this can go either way.
>" In 20 years, the Beatles and ac/dc will be less relevant and easier to live without." If you made that statement I'm guessing that you don't realize that the Beatles have been relevant for 50 plus years now and AC/DC for 40 plus years. They are so enduring because they are classics. It's amusing that you believe that when yet another generation discovers these artists they are somehow going to become less relevant…
Spotify was excited to get them because it means older people might join. A larger audience, that's it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"Starting their own label is exactly what they need to do to remain competitive. It's exactly what Netflix ended up doing and I think it's turning out pretty well for them." This seems to be a common refrain that Spotify can just "pull a Netflix." And this is very unlikely. Firstly no matter how much opriginal content they could create, if they don't have back catalog it's going to be a total non-starter for the mai…
> A streaming service that has no Beatles, Pink Floyd, No Motown, No AC/DC etc is going to shed users pretty quickly. I disagree. I think for most people music is fungible; they just want something to listen to. I think Spotify can afford to have gaps in it's library. Sure, if a large enough portion of the music industry cut them off it would be an issue, but I don't think they're in imminent danger of that.
If you are the kind of person that will sometimes strongly desire to listen to only one song/style/artist, and that desire is so strong that nothing else satisfies it, then Spotify not having your track can be a big deal.
If I can't build a decent playlist because Spotify's lack of coverage, that's going to be a big deal to me.
The mainstream is not sensitive to nor do they care about the logistics of music distribution. I wish there was a way for Spotify to ignore these bullshit distribution deals because the only people who care about them are megalabels and their A&R reps. I don't know of a single artist making bank off streaming...